Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-08-22
INsRPERABLENESs OF THOUGHT AND
LANGUAGE

roltesor +. MAX muller, IN his lectures
ON the identity Of language. and thought,
holds that language is the history of hu-
man thought. The Open Court deems the
views OF the eminent philologist on the
subject to be of such high value that it
has secured the manuscript of the lectures,
which have not been before published, and
Is now printing them. OF the identity of
thought words and word thoughts, Muller
is fully convinced He holds with Hobbies
that man has reason because he has Ian
slage, and that truth and falsity have no
place but among such living create
n4e speech. Locke, while doubling WIZ
thought was impossible withou, =,
declared that i 7.,e not all. in ,neir
thinking aud reasoning within themselves.
make use of words instead of IDEAS at least
when the subject Of their meditation con
tains in it complex ideas But this view
Muller stigmatizes as half-hearted, and as
level with that " of philosophers who
shrink from resolute thought They are
ready to admit that it is almost impossible
70 think without words, hut where this
almost begins or where il ends they never
tell us" Even i4eibniz admits he WAS
greatly troubled by finding he could have
no thought inseparable from language of
some kind. Berkeley went TO the extreme
opposite Of the position of Muller, who
quotes him as saving that he was con-
Ylnced that words were the greatest i'm
pediment to thought. Muller finds that
Kant gave little attention to the subject
and Hume was in doubt, but William Won
humboldt wrote, " If we separate intellect
'tnd language, such q separation does not
exist in reality" Schleiermacher. the
translator of Plato, pronounced thinking
and speaking entirely one, and Scheliing
and Hegel, divided on so many things,
agreed on the identity of reason and
language. The former held that " with
out language it is impossible to concern
philosophical, nay any human conscious
ness. In manner as forcible and in
clslve as ever graced any argumentatiye
essay, Muller makes his reader feel the
earnestness of his own belief, that ait is
incredible that language should ever have
been conceived as something that will ex-
list by itself, apart from our whole intel
lectual nature, or that thought, on the
other hand, should have been considered
as possible without language" If one has
not meditated upon this subject much, it
will require but brief mental earnest
contest and experiment in the attempt to
think without thinking in words, to open
up to himself something of the field
Muller explores, and 10 amaze himself
with the enhancing, mystical, mental in
yolvement in which it will plunge him.
The idea that thought is one thing, and
the sounds which we call words quite
another, Muller pronounces to be kind
Of philosophical Authorization. Whatley,
having been laughed al by Sir Vim. Hamil-
ton, for declaring logic to be entirely con-
yersant with language" John Stuart Mill
came to the rescue of the Archbishop by
arguing that the formation of concepts
and the subsequent process of combining
them as arguments must be considered as
a process of language. While thus quot
ing Mill, Muller regrets that the great
thinker thereafter quaii6ed his express
sions in manner to leave his real belief
in doubt. Nuller's views run counter to
the mental philosophy of most theological
writers, but the force and vigor with which
he presents his ideas command admiration.